Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

Yes, it's good that I'll still (hopefully) be able to see all Laker games...if that's what you wanted to hear.

But I'd like to see other TWC programming as well, which I will not see on DirecTV...not to mention the Pac-12 networks.

But my point is more about the DirecTV situation in general, where they seem to have changed their negotiating tactics. It makes me worry what channels DirecTV will carry in the future.

Sandra

I second Sandra. I'm already assuming that, by the time Directv needs to renew MSG and MSG+, I'm going to lose both, as I'm fairly sure MSG Networks, owned by the same owners as Cablevision, will want a pretty penny and, under Mike White's directions, Directv seems to no longer put a premium on local RSNs.

I understand what Directv is doing is to fire some warning shots to the other existing and potential new RSNs but still, Directv used to be known as the Sports Leader AND, because of that, people were willing to pay a premium for Directv's services. If I wanted a cheap provider, I'd had stayed with Dish and cheapo Charlie, which, btw, was able to make an agreement with Pac-12.

To summarize, the pre-Mike White Directv would have agreements in place with all these new RSNs and, of course, would have raised our bills. The Mike White Directv don't have agreements in place.

I second Sandra. I'm already assuming that, by the time Directv needs to renew MSG and MSG+, I'm going to lose both, as I'm fairly sure MSG Networks, owned by the same owners as Cablevision, will want a pretty penny and, under Mike White's directions, Directv seems to no longer put a premium on local RSNs.

I understand what Directv is doing is to fire some warning shots to the other existing and potential new RSNs but still, Directv used to be known as the Sports Leader AND, because of that, people were willing to pay a premium for Directv's services. If I wanted a cheap provider, I'd had stayed with Dish and cheapo Charlie, which, btw, was able to make an agreement with Pac-12.

To summarize, the pre-Mike White Directv would have agreements in place with all these new RSNs and, of course, would have raised our bills. The Mike White Directv don't have agreements in place.

Wasn't the last MSG deal under White? I believe so.

If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

That doesn't mean that Mike White will renew it. I feel that deal was worked out before they changed their tune on RSNs.

You can't deny that there is at least some validity in what TravelFan1 is saying - the directv of a couple of years ago would have been at the forefront of launching these channels. And the directv of today is 0 for 3 on new domestic RSNs (Pac 12, Sportsnet, CSN Houston.)

Mike White's contract was set to expire in January, but he agreed to a new deal last week, so whatever this new direction D* is headed in will continue. I wonder what will happen when some of the current deals with RSN's expire. Could it be they are going to hold off on any new sports channels, and stop renewing any of the expiring contracts, until they agree to go a la carte? Is this how D* is going to counter skyrocketing sports costs and cable's semi-monopolies on sports channels? How long will it take until someone sets precedent and agrees to go a la carte? The Pac-12 didn't bite and Dish messed up D* plan there by adding the network under the traditional satellite structure. And there have been rumblings that D* and Dish are talking merge again, so things will really change if that comes to pass. But those talks won't heat up for at least another four years depending on how the election shakes. One thing's for sure, the golden years for sports on D* appear to be over, for now. I'm not saying they still don't have the best selection of sports (in HD), but when I have to go to TWC to get two very important sports channels in LA, and people in other parts of the county are having the same issues, then it's clear the dynamic is changing and D* is trying to find a way to stop the shift. A la carte, in some cases, may be their only hope...

That's what's so puzzling to me about Directv's stance.. A la carte really doesn't favor them in the long run because it removes the competitive advantage that they have over streaming companies (big selection for less than the cost of each channel individually). Maybe in short term OPEX they benefit, but if they start going a la carte for everything - what's my incentive to stay with them and not get my TV through say... Xbox?

but if they start going a la carte for everything - what's my incentive to stay with them and not get my TV through say... Xbox?

Because Xbox doesn't offer your local teams. Unless of course the teams and leagues start offering that in the future. But if they do it for Xbox or PS3 or internet then they'll have to offer it that way to all providers, which they should have started doing years ago.

Because Xbox doesn't offer your local teams. Unless of course the teams and leagues start offering that in the future. But if they do it for Xbox or PS3 or internet then they'll have to offer it that way to all providers, which they should have started doing years ago.

That's my point. If they start down an a la carte path then everyone starts down an a la carte path, including with the Xboxes and PS3s of the world. You are already seeing that with ST and PS3. If they go a la carte they're assuming an awful lot about what customer behavior would be all for a little short term opex savings.

So it's not any spin. Now, who knows the accuracy of all of this, but if Directv can charge $3.26 per sub in Pittsburg then maybe $3.95 would be the going rate for a program like the Lakers. Of course, value is in the eyes of both parties in an unrelated deal. And if Root Sports Northwest can clear $2.84 a month with very little winter content then you'd have to assume the Lakers would be worth more.

Again, that's less than what twc is asking, and twc flat out said they are asking less than what they are charged for root. They spin facts to a lie and use that to try and create pressure. I not even going to get into the number of games and sports n th different channels, etc, at the times all these contracts where signed with root.

That's my point. If they start down an a la carte path then everyone starts down an a la carte path, including with the Xboxes and PS3s of the world. You are already seeing that with ST and PS3. If they go a la carte they're assuming an awful lot about what customer behavior would be all for a little short term opex savings.

Or maybe they have decided that streaming will collapse on itself in short order. I don't see the economic drive for streaming nor the infrastructure on a large scale basis. Linear is here for quite some time yet.

That's what's so puzzling to me about Directv's stance.. A la carte really doesn't favor them in the long run because it removes the competitive advantage that they have over streaming companies (big selection for less than the cost of each channel individually). Maybe in short term OPEX they benefit, but if they start going a la carte for everything - what's my incentive to stay with them and not get my TV through say... Xbox?

I think they are after putting sports channels in general in their own separate tier, and telling the new channels, not the existing ones, they aren't getting in easy. I don't think existing channels will be the big worry, I think its all the new channels that companies want to start. Just look at Los Angeles' we went from two to four RSNs with the same amount of major sports, and they now want probably close to twice as much for the same essential product. That's the problem DirecTV is hard lining against, I think.

I live in Las Vegas and it's a Lakers market, am I black out of the Lakers games if I have league pass? Last night I was able to see the game between the Lakers and Pistons on Fox Sports Detroit.

Thanks

Unless the Lakers market changed this offseason then yes, out-of-market feeds should be blacked out.

I'm starting to become skeptical of DIRECTV "accidents" when it comes to free previews. Just a few weeks ago DIRECTV "accidentally" gave a free preview of the grandfathered Choice Xtra Classic which, of course, leads people to thinking they get channels they don't if they upgrade.

Again, that's less than what twc is asking, and twc flat out said they are asking less than what they are charged for root. They spin facts to a lie and use that to try and create pressure. I not even going to get into the number of games and sports n th different channels, etc, at the times all these contracts where signed with root.

None of us do not really know what is being said behind all the doors. We do not know when one side cites "we pay more already" that they mean per sub, across the board or whatever other formula.

Fact remains that is is disingenuous to argue on one end for an ala carte model and on the other end for the same traditional deal for its own channels.

Directv already has shut us down in Oregon on CSN-NW and the Blazers. Fact is that per sub we are paying MORE for Root NW - their own channel. Directv has cited publicly the costs for a part-time channel (which is true), but then ignores that it's own Root NW is a part-time channel and it charges MORE.

I do not object to Directv making a business decision to do what it is doing. Sports channel costs are out of control. But then at the same time Directv is doing the same thing as Time Warner on the other end and blocking entry by competitors into the channel box. I also object to Directv lying about it. They did it with the Pac 12 and the Laker channel. They never had any intent to carry these channels.

None of us do not really know what is being said behind all the doors. We do not know when one side cites "we pay more already" that they mean per sub, across the board or whatever other formula.

Fact remains that is is disingenuous to argue on one end for an ala carte model and on the other end for the same traditional deal for its own channels.

Directv already has shut us down in Oregon on CSN-NW and the Blazers. Fact is that per sub we are paying MORE for Root NW - their own channel. Directv has cited publicly the costs for a part-time channel (which is true), but then ignores that it's own Root NW is a part-time channel and it charges MORE.

I do not object to Directv making a business decision to do what it is doing. Sports channel costs are out of control. But then at the same time Directv is doing the same thing as Time Warner on the other end and blocking entry by competitors into the channel box. I also object to Directv lying about it. They did it with the Pac 12 and the Laker channel. They never had any intent to carry these channels.

Why do you say root northwest is parttime? I get it 24/7 minus blackouts.

Why do you say root northwest is parttime? I get it 24/7 minus blackouts.

The lack of content. There is very little on. Pac 12 football, gone, Pac 12 basketball mostly gone. Supersonics off to Ok City, Blazers on CSN....what is left? Big Sky football, geez, most of that is outside of the footprint anyway....Mariners in the summer and nothing in the winter

High School football is now the marquee sport in the fall/winter on ROOT NW.

I second Sandra. I'm already assuming that, by the time Directv needs to renew MSG and MSG+, I'm going to lose both, as I'm fairly sure MSG Networks, owned by the same owners as Cablevision, will want a pretty penny and, under Mike White's directions, Directv seems to no longer put a premium on local RSNs.

I understand what Directv is doing is to fire some warning shots to the other existing and potential new RSNs but still, Directv used to be known as the Sports Leader AND, because of that, people were willing to pay a premium for Directv's services. If I wanted a cheap provider, I'd had stayed with Dish and cheapo Charlie, which, btw, was able to make an agreement with Pac-12.

To summarize, the pre-Mike White Directv would have agreements in place with all these new RSNs and, of course, would have raised our bills. The Mike White Directv don't have agreements in place.

The pre-Mike White days programming costs were going up 5% and could be recovered with 4% to 5% price increases. Now they are going up 10% a year, and can't be recovered with price increases. Those are the realities of today's world.

So it's not any spin. Now, who knows the accuracy of all of this, but if Directv can charge $3.26 per sub in Pittsburg then maybe $3.95 would be the going rate for a program like the Lakers. Of course, value is in the eyes of both parties in an unrelated deal. And if Root Sports Northwest can clear $2.84 a month with very little winter content then you'd have to assume the Lakers would be worth more.

The difference is that Root Sports Pittsburgh is broadcasting 162 games of Pittsburgh Pirates and 82 games of Pittsburgh Penguins, plus other content.